Follow us on social

US Dollar

Are Trump's aggressive policies weakening the dollar?

The administration's global economic strategy of decoupling and cajoling alignment is prompting other countries to reduce its exposure

Analysis | Global Crises

There has been an extraordinary flurry of announcements from the Trump administration about its preferred domestic and international policies since January 20.

Policies have been threatened, announced, postponed, canceled, and reinstated with greater or lesser severity. But underneath this hyperactivity, a clear pattern of economic policy preferences is emerging.

The White House has the following goals — shrink America’s trade deficits; use economic pressure to force countries to align with U.S. goals; recalibrate America’s strategic interests and the balance of U.S. and allied defense spending; maintain the central global role of the dollar; and keep interest rates low by encouraging inflows of foreign capital into U.S. government debt.

It is less clear that all these goals can be achieved simultaneously, as American actions provoke reactions from other governments and financial markets. Policies that seek to reduce the U.S. trade deficit and pare back the defense umbrella could lead to economic and political reactions elsewhere that impact the preservation of the dollar’s centrality and push up America’s interest rates.

Stephen Miran, head of the Council of Economic Advisers, has acknowledged that “demand for dollars has kept our [U.S.] interest rates low.” And Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has argued that global trade imbalances are in good part driven by insufficient consumption in Europe and Asia.

But the accounting counterpart of large U.S. trade deficits is a large net flow of dollars overseas, thus creating a demand for a place to store those dollars, including U.S. Treasuries. Thus, basic arithmetic means that the goal of reducing U.S. trade deficits could reduce demand for U.S. Treasuries and put upward pressure on interest rates. Pushing for sharp increases in defense spending outside the U.S. could lead to, as I previously noted, “allies borrowing and spending more on their own defense, creating alternatives that can compete with Treasuries for global investors’ favor.”

Miran has suggested ways to square this circle, at least in part. For example, allies could “boost defense spending and procurement from the U.S., buying more U.S.-made goods, and taking strain off our servicemembers and creating jobs here.” Or “they could simply write checks to Treasury [sic] that help us finance global public goods.”

His idea is that greater burden-sharing could benefit the U.S., whether through more export business for defense contractors (thus reducing the trade deficit), or more revenues for the Treasury from the provision of “defense as a service.” All this could be described as an attempt to monetize primacy.

However, the very definition of allies may have become more uncertain as patterns of national interest become more fluid and situational, potentially pushing customers away from long-term dependence on American military technology. For example, concerns have emerged in Europe about a potential “kill switch” embedded in American hardware. These worries are overblown, but the denial of software upgrades was already a tool of statecraft under President Biden. Even so, the U.S. is so far ahead in many defense technologies that other countries have few indigenous options at the same level of sophistication. So Europe is splitting the difference in its defense ramp-up, both buying from the U.S. and increasing domestic production over the long term.

Current policies might also be eroding a broader quid pro quo that underlies America’s historically unique status as the world’s largest debtor AND provider of the dominant global currency. Britain was the world’s largest creditor in 1914, a status that was formally transferred (along with the mantle of dominant-currency provider) to the U.S. by 1945. But by the 1980s, a different bargain emerged — the dollar’s centrality endured even as the U.S. became an external debtor but provided both a defense umbrella and a market for the world’s goods.

One question is whether that unique status is dented by a reduced American willingness to perform both those roles. For example, Japan’s finance minister has mused that his country’s Treasury holdings could play a part in tariff negotiations with the U.S.

The underlying quest for low interest rates and persistent dollar centrality has also led in another direction — encouraging the expansion of dollar stablecoins. These are globally transferrable privately issued digital tokens that guarantee that they will hold a par value to the dollar. The twin rationale is that this will solidify global “dollar dominance” by enabling private holdings of a digital version of the currency around the world, while also forcing the issuers of such stablecoins to hold U.S. Treasury debt, increasing demand for the same.

Such vehicles could create financial stability issues elsewhere by enabling capital flight, but this might not disturb the administration (even if foreign financial meltdowns have in the past impacted American exporters and investors). However, there is no guarantee that foreign money flowing into digital dollars would react differently than similar flows into conventional dollars should markets fear heightened political pressures on the Fed. Even the U.S. could be hit by financial instability enabled by widening the mechanisms of instantaneous cross-border digital currency transfers.

Beyond some of the inherent contradictions across these multiple goals, America’s efforts in this direction are also pushing other countries and regions to reduce their vulnerability to U.S. economic and monetary pressures. ECB President Christine Lagarde has called for measures to deepen European integration in order to bolster the euro as a competitor to the dollar. The EU has long talked about this with less follow-through. Nevertheless, a key market indicator of European structural integrity — the spread between Italian and German debt — is at multiyear lows, suggesting investors believe this time may be different.

China’s central bank is also pushing to internationalize its currency, something that will be harder than in Europe, given that China imposes more stringent controls on capital flows. However, there are many signs that Chinese banks are lending more across borders (particularly in Asia) in renminbi rather than in dollars, expanding the international role of China’s currency into areas where the dollar has been predominant.

These developments will all take time, but it may turn out the U.S. is juggling too many balls of international economic diplomacy all at once.


Top image credit: Yingko via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Global Crises
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Air sickness symptoms: Old nukes and the F-35

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

keep readingShow less
Trump returns to a failed playbook in Africa
Top image credit: 3rd SFG Soldiers on the range with Republic of Mali Armed Forces during a training exercise. Fort Bragg, NC. 8/4/2009 US Army Special Operations Command

Trump returns to a failed playbook in Africa

Africa

The Trump administration is reportedly increasing its intelligence sharing and military support to military-ruled Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger — all as part of a transactional framework aimed at boosting American access to critical minerals while also contesting Russian and Chinese influence in Africa. The administration’s approach may well find a receptive audience in Bamako, Ouagadougou, and Niamey, as well as within hawkish elements of the national security bureaucracy back in Washington. Yet the enhanced support is unlikely to make a meaningful difference in combating insurgencies in the troubled Sahel region.

The central Sahelian countries have been troubled by jihadist activity since the 2000s, and a rebellion in northern Mali in 2012 provided jihadists an even greater role in the region. Intensive French counterterrorism operations from 2013 to 2022 initially knocked jihadists back. Yet from 2015 onwards, insurgency spread from northern Mali into central zones of that country and into Burkina Faso and Niger, eventually spilling over into Benin, Togo, and Cote d’Ivoire as well (although Cote d’Ivoire has achieved some tenuous success in blunting jihadists’ momentum there).

keep readingShow less
Ursula von der Leyen Benjamin Netanyahu
Top image credit: miss.cabul and noamgalai via shutterstock.com

Europe finally stands up to Israel — but only halfway

Europe

In a significant and long-overdue shift, the European Commission has finally moved to recalibrate its relationship with Israel. Its proposed package of measures — sanctioning extremist Israeli ministers and violent settlers and suspending valuable trade concessions — marks the most substantive attempt by the EU to impose consequences for the Netanyahu government’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who once stood accused of a pronounced pro-Israeli bias, now states unequivocally that “the horrific events taking place in Gaza on a daily basis must stop.” Her declaration that the EU remains an “unwavering champion of the two-state solution” being “undermined by the Israeli government’s recent settlement actions” is a stark admission that Brussels can no longer ignore the chasm between its stated principles and its enabling actions.

These steps are important. They signal a breaking point with an Israeli government that has dismissed, with increasing contempt, the concerns of its European partners. The proposed tariffs, reinstating Most Favored Nation rates on €5.8 billion of Israeli exports, are not merely symbolic; they are a tangible economic pressure designed to get Jerusalem’s attention. The targeted sanctions against ministers responsible for inflammatory rhetoric and policies add a necessary layer of personal accountability.

Yet, for all its heft, this package suffers from critical flaws: it is horribly late, it remains dangerously incomplete, and it is a crisis, to a large degree, of Europe’s own making.

First, the delay. For almost two years since Hamas’ attack on Israel and Israel’s military campaign in Gaza leading to the killing of more than 60,000 people the world has watched the devastating conflict unfold. The EU, “the biggest donor of humanitarian aid,” has been forced to react to a catastrophe its own trade and political support helped underwrite. This response, only now materializing after immense public and diplomatic pressure, feels less like proactive statecraft and more like a belated attempt to catch up to reality — and to the moral courage already shown by several of its own member states.

Second, and most glaringly, the package omits the most logical and legally sound measure: a full ban on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. This is a profound failure of principle and policy. The settlements are universally recognized under international law as illegal. They are the very engine of the occupation that von der Leyen now claims is undermining the two-state solution.

While the Commission hesitates, what the Brussels-based head of the European Middle East Project Martin Konecny calls “a domino effect” is taking hold at the national level. The Dutch government has just announced it will ban imports from Israeli settlements, becoming the fifth EU member state to do so, following recent and decisive moves by Ireland, Slovenia, Belgium, and Spain. This growing coalition underscores both the moral imperative and the political feasibility of such a measure that the Commission continues to avoid.

Furthermore, this is not merely a political choice; it is a legal obligation. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its landmark opinion last year, made clear that all states are required to cease trade and support that facilitates Israel’s illegal settlement regime. As a matter of EU law, a union-wide ban could — and should — be implemented by a qualified majority vote as a necessary trade measure to uphold fundamental legal principles. The continued failure to do so renders the EU complicit in perpetuating the very system it now claims to oppose.

Third, the Commission’s entire approach suffers from a crippling legal and moral loophole: its proposed measures are framed purely through a humanitarian lens, deliberately sidestepping the EU’s explicit legal obligations to prevent genocide. By focusing solely on suspending parts of the Association Agreement, the proposal ignores the most direct form of complicity — the continued flow of arms from member states to Israel.

These lethal transfers, which fall outside the Agreement’s scope, are the subject of Nicaragua’s landmark case against Germany at the ICJ, which argues that providing weapons to a state plausibly committing genocide is a violation of the Genocide Convention. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Germany alone accounted for 30% of Israel’s major arms imports in 2019-2023. Berlin continued licensing the arms exports after the outbreak of war in 2023. The Commission’s failure to even address, let alone propose to halt, this pipeline of weapons from the member states while invoking “horrific events” reveals a strategic timidity that undermines the very rule of law it claims to defend.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.